1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The NYT goes all 'journalists know better than readers' again

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by sm72, Sep 16, 2012.

  1. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    I think our new friend has a reading comprehension problem.

    The article is about forced "fair balance" where you have to provide the opinions of the wingnuts on an issue, say, like evolution where the mouthbreathers believe the world is 5,000 years old

    Simply put, false balance is the journalistic practice of giving equal weight to both sides of a story, regardless of an established truth on one side

    Not sure why this is a difficult concept This has nothing to do with readers. It's about journalistic integrity
     
  2. sm72

    sm72 Member

    I know what she's trying to say. What she actually says is a different thing entirely.
     
  3. Norrin Radd

    Norrin Radd New Member

    He doesn't have a "reading comprehension problem." That's such an asshole thing to say. Then, to interpret what she wrote so you get to make loud political points, equally foolish. But that's JR for you.

    Anyway, the kid doesn't lack "reading comprehension." He just saw the piece differently than you did. I don't agree with his conclusions either, but such is life.

    Agreed.
     
  4. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    The "both sides" method not only frequently enables a false equivalency, but makes total nutjobs and crackpots "experts."

    Seems like in the past, before everything became a political argument - if a quality "voice of the opposition" couldn't be found (or didn't exist) it just wasn't included. Now there are people who make careers out of being "the voice of the opposition" on the topic of the day and journalists have given them credibility.
     
  5. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Oh, please.

    In his opening sentence he says the column is "uppity", an adjective you usually make for hired help or, you know, "people not like us".

    And his support starts with reader comments on the article--not a good strategy to bolster any argument about journalism

    And I wasn't making any political points. It was column about journalism

    He misread the column.
     
  6. Norrin Radd

    Norrin Radd New Member

    Uh . . . .

    Anyway, you attempting to lecture anyone about journalism should get the same response given to YankeeFan when he wants to comment on journalism.

    Yet for whatever reason, it doesn't.
     
  7. sm72

    sm72 Member

    Oh, it does, don't worry. And while "uppity" does have that connotation, JR, anyone with reading comprehension, as you call it, can see I was using it in the way it's defined: arrogant, presumptuous, conceited or haughty, if you care to look it up.

    My points are my own. I was just pointing out a like-minded person who also disliked the column and also noticed the feeling of being talked down to throughout. Now, before you tell me I can't read again, do you need me to define any of the words in this post?

    P.S. -- Fuck not taking jabs on here. This is getting fun.
     
  8. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    What do YF's comments on journalism have to do with mine?

    Oh, I know, I'm not a journalist. Is that your point? That I "never played the game"?

    Sorry, what national media outlet do you work for?
     
  9. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Here are a couple of other definitions for uppity.

    Taking liberties or assuming airs beyond one's place in a social heirarchy. Assuming equality with someone higher up the social ladder.

    And this of course:

    Word used by racist old white Southerners to refer to any black person who looks them in the eye.

    First one is the standard in polite society.
     
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    In his defense, Norrin defends me against those kinds of charges.

    He's wondering why you don't face the same charges from some here, who would make them against me, and suspects it's because of like minded politics.

    The criticisms don't bother me -- obviously.
     
  11. Bradley Guire

    Bradley Guire Well-Known Member

    Given the nature of the comments on the NYT piece, I'm wondering if readers believe anything in the media, period. It seems that if it doesn't jive with what their preferred party is saying, it must not be true.

    I really believe most people don't give two shits about the facts if if hurts their party's chances of winning. And I say that about both parties, because it's not about doing good anymore. It's about winning races. It's why I hate politics.
     
  12. sm72

    sm72 Member

    Oh! I get it now. You're THAT guy. The one who gets his rocks off by being annoying on message boards because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed with a stick mysteriously lodged in his ass and because of the blinding pain caused by said stick, mistook his bowl of cereal for a toilet, thus pissing in his OWN Cheerios. You're THAT guy.

    See, you did teach me something after all! I now know to never respond to your dumb comments ever, ever again. Thanks for the memo.

    Ya uppity bastard.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page